Pontifications: Airbus’ new edginess

Hamilton KING5_2

By Scott Hamilton

March 14, 2016, © Leeham Co.: Airbus is presenting a new edginess in the long-running war of words with Boeing, adopting a tactic Boeing has used for years to make its case.

The European manufacturer has never been shy about getting in its digs at Boeing, but generally Boeing’s messaging—years in the making and steadfastly adhered to—has had more sticking power than Airbus’.

Figure 1 Boeing v Airbus

Figure 1. Click on image to enlarge.

Boeing has frequently showed Power Point slides comparing the widebody products vs. Airbus, with question marks or an X through or next to various Airbus planes, usually the A350 line. Boeing raised questions whether the A350-800 would ever be built. Boeing also raised questions over the viability of the A350-1000, and the product gap between the -1000 and the giant A380. (Figure 1.)

Figure 2 Airbus v Boeing MOM

Figure 2. Click on image to enlarge.

At two conferences this year, the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance (PNAA) and the International Society for Transport Aircraft Traders (ISTAT), Airbus officials struck back. Addressing the Middle of the Market topic, Airbus cast doubts on the 737-9 and 787-8. (Figure 2).

Figure 3 Airbus Blows Out Boeing

Figure 3. Click on image to enlarge.

Airbus took the messaging one step further by “disappearing” the two Boeing airplanes, while arguing its A321neo and A330-800 fills the middle of the market, while Boeing, it claims, has the product gap (Figure 3).

Turnabout is fair play, it seems.

Figure 4 B781 v A339

Figure 4. Click on image to enlarge.

Boeing continues to make a comparison between its airplanes and Airbus in another category. At the same PNAA and ISTAT conferences, an official displayed a slide the compared the 787-10 with the A330-300/900, highlighting more range available with the 787-10. (Figure 4.) The comparison, however, is rather selective. The 787-10 carries 60 more passengers than the A330, according to the Boeing data.

Figure 5 781 v A359

Figure 5. Click on image to enlarge.

A better comparison for airplane size would be against the A350-900, which carriers 12 more passengers–but which Boeing elected not to show. The A350-900 has 1,360 miles more range. (Figure 5.)

Such is an inconvenient truth.

 

75 Comments on “Pontifications: Airbus’ new edginess

  1. Does anyone think that major airlines are swayed by this stuff. I would sincerely hope that investments of billions would be based on a little more than a PowerPoint presentation

    • This is not for people buying aircrafts, this is for stock analysts … oh … and perhaps for people spending too much time on comment boxes of aviation websites 😉

      • That is “recursive”. Posts are again read by stock analysts or just plush out the “mood scape”.

        Repeating your ( false or not ) position often enough makes it true for the uninformed recipient.

    • I really don’t have a big problem with either Airbus’ or Boeing’s slides (Boeing shouldn’t put a question mark over the A380 without adding one over the 748-i and Airbus’ is cherry picking data based on a irrelevant time scale, but whatever). The each are pointing out where they have an advantage or where the competitor is being less than transparent about its future plans. Leahy has been the king of pithy quotes, Boeing needs its PowerPoints to reply. Such is life in the stupid world of marketing.

      I don’t get comparing the 781 with the A359 though. What airline buys a plane based on a mission profile 1000 nm further than it intends to fly? The A359 is carrying around all that extra structure to fly longer so Airbus probably doesn’t want to make the efficiency comparison between the 781 and the A359 either.

    • I don’t think that any half good airline would be swayed by such public positioning. However, the shareholders (who generally don’t themselves by aircraft) need to here that the company they part-own makes the “best” aircraft. The last thing either Boeing or Airbus would ever admit is that their aircraft aren’t the “best”, when in fact what makes an aircraft sell is far more complicated than crude statistics like range, fuel efficiency, etc.

      For example, look at Concorde. Was it the “best”? Well, it was the fastest, but that was about all it had going for it from a technical point of view. BA still made a ton of cash operating it (just as well they didn’t have to pay the development costs), in part because they also made the whole experience classy. Theoretically it would have been possible to run Concorde in a terrible way (always losing the luggage, constant delays, awful food, etc. etc) which would have meant know one would fly, fast or not.

      For the airlines there’s not much they can do about it either but to do a lot of pre-purchase business modelling, buy fleets from each manufacturer and see how it turns out. If an airline is a pure Boeing or pure Airbus outfit, how is it ever going to know for sure that it’s got the best plane?

      I think that the best thing we can do with this kind of public posturing is to ignore it, and accept that on an absolute scale both manufacturer’s designs are pretty damned awesome. Though 737 is definitely getting too long in the tooth, and the A380 is the best.

  2. Yes it’s about time John Leahy take the gloves off and stop being such a fair minded speaker of truth he has been all these years!

    • Airbus’ widebody strategy is a mess for Boeing and the A330 will deadly on arrival for the 787. About these words were used by Mr. Tinseth.

        • Airbus saying the 787-8 is DOA is about as funny as Airbus claiming it can revive the A340 market, or the perennial “we got XX orders for the A380 coming! Stay tuned” marketing BS they’ve peddled…..endlessly.

          Last I checked the 787-8 has over 300 aircraft flying and more to come. Sure lots have been converted to the -9 variant, but, really Airbus? Come on. Perhaps you better roll out some A350-800s before getting on the mic.

          • “Airbus saying the 787-8 is DOA is about as funny…”

            – You found a statement you just made up funny?

          • “Airbus saying the 787-8 is DOA”

            It would be funny if they said that, but they didn’t. The slide says it’s not currently selling. Newsflash – it isn’t. Eleven sales in the last two years. ELEVEN.

            As far as I know, Boeing is the only company that’s used the “DOA” insult, in relation to the A330neo.

          • “The slide says it’s not currently selling. Newsflash – it isn’t. Eleven sales in the last two years. ELEVEN.”

            Which is better than the a350 which stands at NEGATIVE 35. Just saying…

          • Enumerating 787 cancellations would overflow this editor widget 🙂 788 could well be the most canceled airframe ever?

            The resident Bedenkenträger posting here never seem to have mentioned this as a product maiming detail.

          • “The resident Bedenkenträger posting here never seem to have mentioned this as a product maiming detail.”

            Bedenkenträger? Now I have to google it, be right back…

            The cancellations, while prodigious, still have left an order book of 435 787-8s. Not exactly “maimed”.

          • Still it is a lot more ( by numbers, by percentage) than 70 from ~750.
            As you mentioned in respect to the 787: not all that remarkable.
            Now be fair and apply the measure to both types.

          • Speaking of fair you are including one subtype of the 787 vs the entire stock of 350’s. Hardly seems “fair” eh?

        • Leahy probably got the idea of calling Boeing’s products as such from one of Boeing’s own biggest customers.

  3. The 787-8 might need a serious re do, getting out weight left in during the dramatic 2006-2010 development phase. I would not write it off just yet.

    In my opinion the “gap” for Boeing that has to be addressed is 300-350 seat long haul, the center of the market. Boeing can maintain the 787-10 / 777-8 /777-300WER are perfectly fine here. But ask the airlines / look at specs & sales.. They have a payload-range (787-10) and weight/unit cost issue (777-8) that just won’t go away.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Airbus%20Boeing%20A350-8000%20keesje_zpseeyxrxez.jpg

    Boeing might be in the denial phase at this stage, but higher capacity / range 787-10LR/-11 business cases are probably on the table. And in the media before 2018.

    http://kaktusdigital.format.com/#1

    • Looking at these drawings, it seems the A350-8000 might need a tailwheel to protect the rear fuselage on rotation.

    • Keesje:

      The weight is out. As the 787-9 designed sections have been rolled out, those same weight saving process are included in the -8 structures that are build.

      Keeping in mind a 787-9 is a stretched 8, 80% of the Aircraft is common (maybe more)

      • not sure that is completely true, Boeing themselves said that not all the -9 improvements would be backported into the -8 and each was being evaluated on a stringent cost/benefit line.

        • Probably true, but as the fuselage sections are common as is the wings, most of them apply. They probably will not take more out but the same as the -8 is smaller.

          I believe Av Week had an article on that.

          • Further many of the ‘improvements’ that are targeted for the 787-9 relate to cost saving rather than performance enhancement. Out goes titanium unless strictly necessary also bye bye laminar flow tail.

            I understand the focus to be on buildability as opposed to enhancing performance. I am assuming this means that all original performance targets were met but am not in the position to have a view. Given that 300 are flying a review of the 787 in service is well overdue Scott, don’t you think?

          • Separate aspect. They changed some, I read the details an with was a lot of hullabaloo about not a lot.

            I think he only significant change was the windshield frame, the rest was speculative about they would change if they proved it worked as good and lower cost and worth the engineer work to do it.

            Tail is changed as bugs plugged it.

          • @SowerBob:
            “Out goes titanium unless strictly necessary also bye bye laminar flow tail.”

            for the 787?
            to be discontinued on the -9?
            not to be introduced on the -10?

            I knew it was not be incorporated on the 777X

          • Again that was hype. When all was said and done it was just the pilots window frame that got done.\

            The rest was yadi yadi about how they are striving to reduce cost and looking at all areas, no specifics other than the usual ( from memory) sweeping up the chips and such.

            It sounde4d impressive until like most things you get into the detail and it was huh?

  4. Like a bunch of little children trying to grab the teacher’s attention.

    😀

  5. Interesting. However although A350-900 enjoys a significant better range than the 787-10, I don’t see it fitting 12 extra passengers. It is sold at 315 (standard 2-classes layout) and has a smaller cargo capacity, due to its 1.5m shorter length. Facts are one thing, airlines choices are something else. According to CLark’s declarations (CEO of Emirates) the A350-900 should perform better from Dubai (or anywhere else) if one wants to take off at maximum play load. Wait and see what will be Emirates decision for their future mid-capacity long-haul aircraft.

  6. I hope this is not too far from the subject, but the back end of the 737 is a real problem, and of course raises the MOM spectre.

    When Boeing did the 737NG did they not do a new wing? (terrible thing raising issues before internet and forums)

    So if my ancient memory is correct, why on earth did they not use the 757(still in production then) wing box as the basis of the NG wing?

    The 737-9 could have been quite a different animal as could the MAX!

    • The only possible short term MOM seems to me the 787-3.

      Problems are available 787 slots and the price tag compared to A330s.

    • For one much too beefy and would have killed the grandfathering. ( 777X keeps the original wingbox too.)

      The NG’s new wing seems to be modeled around the original wing structure as present on the Classic. And imu it didn’t quite reach state of the 1990ties art as “new” goes.
      NASA: “NG shows elements of a supercritical wing”

  7. Hello Scott

    So Boeing is crediting the A330-900NEO a 245 NM increase in range vs the A330-300… and a shortfall of only 165 NM !
    Does he already counts the suggested MTOW increase or will it end up in a tie (range wise… not payload wise)

    Bonne journée

  8. “—years in the making and steadfastly adhered to—has had more sticking power than Airbus’.”

    More sticking power to a significant part from better “transport” available from the media scape.

    This won’t be available to Airbus.
    What would be narrated with stern faces if it came from Boeing will turned into laughing stock for Airbus writ.

    Media in general are strongly partisan. not all but most 🙂

  9. Well I guess the emperor strikes back!

    On the other hand, per a discui9osn a short time ago, if Boeing says its true then it is, right? (grin)

    Oddly though, in the case of the 737-900/9, they are doing the opposite, comparing a very capable aircraft to an aircraft that is really in a separate category. What were they thinking?

    All very funny and entertaining to some degree, but what counts is who buys what and how many you can crank out.

    Airbus is doping very well with the A321 not only in sales but production of an airframe they don’t have to discount, somewhat of a wash with the A320 and 737 lowers (arguably an edge (sales, not production)

    787 is doing well, A330 continues to do pretty well with the NEO coming up and finding out how solid some of the orders are.

    A350 has yet to catch-up with the 777, 777 is slowing, with the same transient phase coming up into the 777x. Big question if abandoning the 777-300ER slot was a smart move.

    747 and A380 continue to languish.

    Overall it seem to me that Airbus is better positioned with a broacher product line even though it does not cover as much range as the Boeing line will when the 777x is produced.

    A320 series also has significant upside in that it can easily move to an all new wing making a significant improvement (and next generation of GTF)

    • I’ve always thought that having the A380 design on the books will always stand Airbus in good stead. There will always be high volume hub airports with landing slot restrictions where bigger most definitely is better.

      I also wonder what the current A380 operators will think should Airbus ever talk about stopping production. Some airlines have built up a lot of long haul business by running A380s, it’s got a good following from the paying public, and it’s difficult to think what could eventually replace it except another A380. Certainly it couldn’t always be replaced with something smaller, noisier or more cramped.

  10. Still a big jump from A321 with 36m wing and 35K engines to A338 with 64m wing and 68K engines.

      • This is comparable to the “uncanny valley” robotics, see:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

        Nicht Fisch nicht Fleisch.

        IMU there is a similar dip in the Twin Aisle to DoubleDecker transition.
        Only demand there has not jumped that gap on a wider front 🙂

        could we adapt this effect to explain why the 739MAX sells badly ?

        • Good point. MOM sounds bland, should be called the binraku puppet aircraft.

          • Gap is only an issue if someone has a product (A321) in it you do not (737-900/9)

            It may be an exploitable gap with a new aircraft, I don’t know that a stretched 737-MAX would do anything more than create a true A321 competitor, maybe with a bit of an initial edge.

            Airbus can always re-wing the A321 and most likely match it and unless Boeing goes with GTF could also go with a GENII GTF and really step on the gas.

      • There will always be a gap between single-aisle and and two aisles.

        Adding just one more seat is a bad use of space for flights over 3 hours. For a new aisle at least 2 or 3 seats should be added and LD3 capable.

        Airbus could do an A322 with folding wing tips to keep the gate size or a modern version of the A310.

        • If LD3 are a given, I think the A350 is the optimal cross section solution. In which case a 52m fuselage with a 52m wing is the solution to an ideal smaller aircraft.

          With a glut of cargo capacity in the market, lighter twin aisles with LD3-45 may be a better answer.

          • Not sure how much cargo the singles carry.

            I know some, I don’t read about that being a competitive issue though.

        • Is it the case that every size of airliner is going to need folding wingtips? Surely it would be better to adjust the airports?

          • Aircraft are classified by ICAO in accordance to wing span. There are many gates for code C aircraft like A320 or 737. Code D are aircraft like 767, DC10, A310 and 757. So gate size D could be available in the future.

            I doubt the folding wing tips until FAA will approve them for Boeing.

          • Folding wing tips were approved. Built in and part of the existing 777s.

            As it involved a complicated mechanism due to the control surface involved as well as a lot of weight, no one took them up on it. Just parked them in 747 slots!

            That said, new mechanism is outboard far enough that no control surface involved and its a relatively simple and light weight setup.

            FAA will approve it if they approved the last one.

          • AFAIK there never was a certified 777 with folding wingtips around that could have been certified by the FAA.
            It was offered but nobody took it up.
            I am sceptical as to how much “real” certification work preexists.
            (With Boeing as partner the FAA has round heels anyway.)

          • If it was an option and they built it into th4e wing it was not certified.

            No argument that the FAA is lame in most regards. If we are lucky it will get broken up and become just an enforcement agency not a promtoit9on agency on top of enforcement.

            The battery debacle is more than enough though many past deeds to their discredit (and not just for Boeing, DC-10 crash and certification of slats that did not lock was stunning failure)

            On the other hand we do have the independents NTSB that does a good job.

  11. “A350 has yet to catch-up with the 777, 777 is slowing, with the same transient phase coming up into the 777x. ”

    That still seems a general perception. Surprizingly, because all slots in this category are booked for the next 5-7 years. Anyone can find out what transition will happen with the big 777 operators in this period, few are willing to.

    Large AA, UA, DL in the USA, BA, AF/KL, LH in Europe, QR, EY and probably EK in the Middle East, SQ, CX, JAL and Chinese are moving, amongst many others. And that’s not an opinion or view.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A350_XWB_orders_and_deliveries#Orders_and_deliveries_by_customer_.28sortable.29

  12. Well since the introduction of the A350 it has been outsold by the 777 951 orders to 777 (ironic eh?) for the 350. From 2014 to 2016 net orders for the A350 stands at negative 35 to 462 net orders for the 777.
    Now 2013 was a good year for the 350 with 230 net orders compared with 121 for the 777 but that’s the only year they have won since 2008 so yeah I think it’s pretty clear the 350 has a lot of catching up to do and the numbers are trending in the wrong direction.

    AA is ordering 22 350s but they have 64 777s in their fleet in the meantime which hardly represents a sea change, at least not yet.
    UA has 35 350s on order but they also have a fleet of 74 777s and another 10 on order. So again, nice order but no fleet turnover yet.
    DL at 25 to 18 777s looks solid
    BA 18 350 orders to a fleet of 58 777s/
    AF 18 350 orders to a fleet of 66 777s with 2 more on order.
    KLN 7 350 orders to a fleet of 25 777s/with four more on order.
    LH 25 350 orders to a fleet of 0 777s/
    QR a big order of 80 350s to a fleet of 37 777s BUT they also have 66 777s in order.
    EY has another big order of 62 350s to a fleet of 30 777s and 25 on order.
    EK Cancelled 70 350s and has a fleet of 132 777s and a whopping 198 more on order. So even if they do order 350s it would barely be a dent in their 777 fleet though I think to say “probably” is an overstatement given their previous cancellation.
    SQ has 67 350 orders to a fleet of 55 777s/with 2 more on order.
    CX 46 350s on order to a fleet of 56 777s with 23 on order.
    JAL 31 350’s on order to a fleet of 41 777s.

    It’s hard to see a wholesale march to the 350 outside of the impressive JAL, DL and LH so I would say the statement…
    ““A350 has yet to catch-up with the 777, 777 is slowing, with the same transient phase coming up into the 777x. ”
    is pretty spot on.

    • @Geo

      Not exactly apples to apples but a compelling set of stats nonetheless. The key to my eyes is the current relatively limited penetration of the in situ b777 fleets. I reckon this is due to the a359 being a replacement for early 200s and a340s. It does not have the capacity of the 300s.

      What I would like to know is what is ‘wrong’ with the a351 as it appears to hit the b777-300er sweet spot perfectly. Is it a case of a lack of near term slots or that Airbus are holding out on price, or is there a more fundamental reason.

      Having said that the a330 has done something similar to the b787 vis a vis sales over a similar time period. My bet is that the a350 programme will be a long-term success story but it does seem to be wading through treacle at present.

      • Yep it’s just a general comparison based on the statements. It seems airlines are dipping their toes rather than diving right in. That being said I too am sure it will be a success and 777 orders is nothing to sneeze at but there is no denying it has hit the doldrums. I haven’t looked at the numbers but it seems not only is the 330neo hurting sales of the 777 and 787 in some circumstances but it’s also hurting the A350. But the numbers definitely suggest the 777 is here to stay for a long time.

        • @ Geo re “… not only is the 330neo hurting sales of the 777 and 787 in some circumstances but it’s also hurting the A350 ” : There is strictly no internal competition between Airbus’ two WB programmes, whereof one dual, on the contrary, they combine into “Three Musketeers” (All For One, One for All). In the opposite camp Boeing = Cardinal Richelieu are churning out WB aircraft (787 + 777) at a frightening pace. Without delivery support from A330 + A330 NEO, A350 would be at a comparative disadvantage, fortunately the two companions save the day.

          • I think the A350-1000 hot field performance is a factor.

            777s designed with middle East in mind.

            Maybe Bjorn can chime in.

          • @ Transworld : Geo’s point is that A330 has a cannibalisation effect upon A350 sales, which I’ve countered as incorrect … whereas you are pointing out hot field perfo as an area where purportedly 777 (designed for ME3, you say ?) would be better at ease than A351, which – if correct (and it probably is) – is something else …

          • You have shown no evidence, other than a “Three Musketeers” reference (loved those movies) that the 330neo has not cut into 350 orders.

            When they made the neos they increased range, capacity and fuel efficency in an effort to cut into Boeing widebody sales. To think these improvements wouldn’t help push them into the low end of the 350’s market would be foolish. They certainly killed whatever chance the -800 had to survive. As for the -900 yes it offers more range and is more efficent and id a newer design but it is also 55 million more expensive than an -800 neo and 20 million more than the -900.

            The 330-800neo seats 257-406 with a range of 7500 miles.
            The 330-900neo seats 287-440 with a range of 6550 miles.
            The 350-800….. seats 280-440 with a range of 8210 miles.
            The 330-900….. seats 325-440 with a range of 7750 miles.

            The neo improvements pushed it close to the 350 market offer a cheaper option especially to airlines that don’t need the extra range. Factor in cost and smaller backlog it would be strange if the neo didn’t siphon some oreders from the 350.

            Finally since it’s introduction the neo has racked up 186 orders while the 350 has been negative -35. Coincidental? Maybe not to whatever degree.

            Not saying the neo will somehow kill the 350 but it’s awful hard to think that it hasn’t had some effect.

          • There’s clear differentiation between the A330neo and A350. Ask Delta Air Lines. I’d suggest they won’t be the last airline to order both.

          • @ Geo : you are skewing my point and I reiterate : A330 + A330 NEO + A350 are « Tous pour Un, Un pour Tous » ! Who cares if the Payload-Range of the A330 NEO tickles the A350 at the wingroots, the ramp-up of A350 is coming slowly (but surely !) whilst the aircraft are needed NOW ! Clearly, an A330 delivery slotted earlier up is still BUSINESS FOR AIRBUS and a relief upon the hard-pressed A350 FAL, the slots of which may be re-marketed at better contract proceeds ! NEO-ising the A330 was masterminded to cool off Boeing’s 787 ramp-up frenzy. You may deem the overlapping « Airbus’ WB strategy mess », the fact remains : all three types are selling well, the combination strengthens Airbus’ delivery potential : « the Three Musqueteers » are a success and all the criticism and épithètes but pinpoint the irr in Cardinal de Richelieu’s camp !

    • Hi Geo, charming to compare 777 ordered during the last 20 years/ in service to the just starting A350 deliveries and conclude the penetration is not convincing at this stage.

      “It’s hard to see a wholesale march to the 350 outside of the impressive JAL, DL and LH so I would say the statement…”

      😀 😀 GEO, are you serious, are you just unwilling to see?

      Hundreds of XWBs will replace hundreds of 777s everywhere at the biggest airlines, while the 777X is 4 years away and the 787-10 constrained.

      Maybe people have to see it happening with their own eyes in the next few years to get it. It’s abstract numbers at this stage.

      The whopping success of the 777X over the last few years is 1 arab sheik launching the aircraft/ ordering 150 from a very willing Boeing. No more and no less. Low sales / penetration for the rest. Maybe he’ll change his mind again if Barak isn’t nice?

      • “Hi Geo, charming to compare 777 ordered during the last 20 years/ in service to the just starting A350 deliveries and conclude the penetration is not convincing at this stage.”

        Hi, charming that you seem to forget the very first paragraph, here I will repeat it for you…

        “Well since the introduction of the A350 it has been outsold by the 777 951 orders to 777 (ironic eh?) for the 350. From 2014 to 2016 net orders for the A350 stands at negative 35 to 462 net orders for the 777.”

        See I didn’t compare orders from the last “20 years” as I clearly wrote. I compared orders from when the 350 was introduced, 10 years ago.

        You made an ill advised assertion not backed up well by facts.. Perhaps think twice if you think no one will bother to check your calculus.

        “The whopping success of the 777X over the last few years is 1 arab sheik launching the aircraft/ ordering 150 from a very willing Boeing. No more and no less. ”

        Wow you could say that about the 380 or the 400+ plane order from Indigo (current fleet 102 planes) yet you don’t. Why is that?

        As for success in “recent years” what exactly are the sales numbers for the 350 in “recent years”. ?

        “Maybe he’ll change his mind again if Barak isn’t nice?”

        Like he changed his mind with the 350? The plane he was so impressed with he cancelled?

        The numbers don’t lie.

        Fact: The 777 has outsold the 350 since the 350’s introduction.
        Fact: Their sales are trending in different directions and the 350 is going in reverse.

        Your assertions might come true but they are certainly not backed up by the current evidence.

        • “Fact: The 777 has outsold the 350 since the 350’s introduction.
          Fact: Their sales are trending in different directions and the 350 is going in reverse.”

          Fact: The A330 has outsold the 787 since the 787’s introduction.
          Fact: Their sales are trending in different directions and the 787 is going in reverse mostly.

          None of the 4 facts are all that much of a relevant statement.

          • Similar trend with the B787 during the first year of operation, wait and see. A350 orders seem to be starting up again after successful early operations and real world data starts to leak out.

          • Please don’t forget the low oil price in the last 2 years.
            At the moment cheaper & less efficient planes are totally fine – for this reason we see a lot of orders for 330 and 777 (+capacity and range come into play too of course).
            Plus, if you want to replace your 747 you won’t go with a smaller 350-1000 that easy, for example.
            A lot of customers may wait for the next few years to decide which direction they will go. They will check if Airbus will produce a 350-1100 and how fuel efficient a 777-9x really is.
            Then you have to consider the timeframe the planes can be delivered/are needed and if an airline company is willing to retrain all their pilots from 777 to 350 – probably not.

            In case an airline does not replace their old 777 with a 350, you cannot simply say the 350 is a worse plane – or vice versa.

            I am surprised what assumption you guys do here… selling numbers will show only a part of the picture…

          • “Fact: The A330 has outsold the 787 since the 787’s introduction.
            Fact: Their sales are trending in different directions and the 787 is going in reverse mostly.”

            Hmmm not really, they were in recession from 2009 to 2012 net orders being -62. Since then the last three years have had orders of 182, 41 and 71 for a total of 295 (one order in 2016 thus far) orders. Those are healthy numbers.

            “None of the 4 facts are all that much of a relevant statement.”

            The question was 350 penetration into operators of 777s. When sales of the 777 are outpacing the 350 it certainly is relevant.

          • @ML

            Hi, just wanted to address your points…

            “A lot of customers may wait for the next few years to decide which direction they will go. They will check if Airbus will produce a 350-1100 and how fuel efficient a 777-9x really is.”

            Well that’s what I wrote. The question was if the 350 was making wholesale inroads into 777 territory and so far it mostly has not. Operators seem to be cautious.

            “Then you have to consider the timeframe the planes can be delivered/are needed and if an airline company is willing to retrain all their pilots from 777 to 350 – probably not.”

            Well if they are ordering more 777s than 350s that point is moot, they won’t be retraining pilots.

            “In case an airline does not replace their old 777 with a 350, you cannot simply say the 350 is a worse plane – or vice versa.’

            Never did, in fact I wrote the opposite.

            “I am surprised what assumption you guys do here… selling numbers will show only a part of the picture…”

            Never said it was the whole picture. I was addressing the narrow point on the current inroads of the 350 and whether the orders evidence supports that the 350 invasion is probable…

        • GEO, apparently we have to agree to disagree. Lets just observe what happens to the 777 / A350 fleets in the next 4-5 years. All seems booked & confirmed. 10 New A350 operators 2016, 8 in 2017 and 2018.

          Next Airbus Boeing battle grounds : Emirates (!), Malaysian, Virgin, Korean, Qantas..

    • Geo, Of course the NEO will have some sort of impact on A350 orders. Airbus can handle that, as long as there is also an impact on 787 orders, which there seems to be.
      What do Airbus care if a customer orders an A350 or and A330? Ordering an A330 NEO keeps that line open and keeps a slot on the A35o line open for another order/customer. The big question is, will the A350 orders start again, and in big numbers? If yes, than the A330 Neo strategy is a resounding success. If not, the worst that happens is that the A35o “only” sells 777 aircraft. Want to bet that it does not stay at that number? As for the A350-800, it is no secret that Airbus is trying to kill this, not keep it alive.

  13. I think most airlines will just stock up on A359s, and the A35J and 777x will be ordered in much smaller numbers.

  14. Boeing at this stage is offering :
    – 787-8
    – 787-9
    – 787-10
    – 777-8
    – 777-9
    – 777-300ER
    – 747-8i

    The 787-9 is a hot aircraft, but others not.. the 777-9 maybe after 2020.

    Airbus is offering :
    – A321LR
    – A330-200/800
    – A330-300/900
    – A350-900
    – A350-1000
    – A380-800

    The A350-900 is the champ at this stage, but the rest isn’t looking too bad either.

    In my opinion Boeing needs to do something extra versus the XWB’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.